Slashdot Mirror

I'm not the parent but I agree with your analysis.

Looks like this is just a "shadow" of the real OBE. :-(

The word you are looking for is "pseudo-skeptic" -- someone whose mind is made up even though they have never experienced it. i.e. Randi.

You'll probably enjoy this excellent essay:

* Debunking PseudoSkeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers, specifically section: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm#RealSkeptics

Please look up: pseudoskepticism

No, wait. That term has been unfairly dilluted over the last decade.
A year or two back, this would have been on top of your google search: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

You can try looking up "pathological scepticism" as well. It should be a clearer term and not subject to subversion to the same extent.

On pseudoskepticism:

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm. But don't take my word for it. Just look at any article by James Randi, Michael Shermer, or Skeptical Inquirer, for example, and you will see that there is no questioning of what they are told, doubt or pondering of possibilities at all. All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies. That's not what skepticism is. The founder of the term itself meant this:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic

        In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

        "One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons." ...

Captcha: ignoring

> far too many of the people who call themselves "skeptics" are in fact not skeptics at all

Sadly yes. :-/ The correct term is Pseudo-Skeptic or Irrational Rationalists.

i.e. see Sofka's excellent "Myths of Skepticism" whitepaper.
http://homepages.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html

or Wu's very interesting essay which despite it being on a different topic altogether lays out the problems of pseudoskeptics.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm

Great quote BTW !

To expand upon your great post, at the risk of getting modded down, since people confuse passion and integrity:

A fantastic read is "Myths of Skepticism"
http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html

Feynman already warned about how Science was turning into a religion.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

He wasn't the first, Planck said it ~50 years earlier.
"Science advanced one funeral at a time", paraphrasing Max Planck's "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

The worse are the "pseudo skeptics" -- those who "pretends to be a skeptic but is so closed-minded that they have become a fundamentalist; unable to accept any other perspective - their mind is already made up by ignoring any (potential new) evidence, such as that liar Randi, a magician pretending to be a Scientist.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm#RealSkeptics

"Simply put, one unwon public challenge by a debunker and magician does NOT invalidate the countless millions of paranormal experiences throughout world history, nor does it refute the years of replicable psi research done by Ganzfeld or PEAR experiments, among others."

A perfect example of how Science has become Religion is Astronomy. They make _several_ assumptions that will turn out to be false once they have more information. They "assume" Dark Matter and Dark Energy Energy exists but they have never observed it. They assume the laws of physics are constant throughout the universe; that is a very dangerous precedent when you have only directly explored %0.0000000001 of it.

While it is fine to come to conclusions before the evidence is in BUT it would behoove BOTH the scientist and public by being honest and upfront with the usual disclaimer: "With our current understanding, this is our best guess (theory) for how we think things work." To pretend otherwise is sheer dogma.

The greatest problem with a few Scientists is that they believe their Holy Scientific Principle is the ONLY way to achieve truth. What Science does is remove one _falsehood_ at a time. There are other methods that add truth one level at a time.

Great post BTW.

Great link on skeptics who won't ever question the "mainstream", thanks: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm#RealSkeptics

To amplify it:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

And see also my: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

And check out Charles Tart writings about the limits of "scientistic" and materialistic thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tart
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/

He has a new book out: "The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal Is Bringing Science and Spirit Together"

Great link on skeptics who won't ever question the "mainstream", thanks: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm#RealSkeptics

To amplify it:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

And see also my: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

And check out Charles Tart writings about the limits of "scientistic" and materialistic thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tart
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/

He has a new book out: "The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal Is Bringing Science and Spirit Together"

Great link on skeptics who won't ever question the "mainstream", thanks: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm#RealSkeptics

To amplify it:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

And see also my: http://www.pdfernhout.net/to-james-randi-on-skepticism-about-mainstream-science.html#Some_quotes_on_social_problems_in_science

And check out Charles Tart writings about the limits of "scientistic" and materialistic thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Tart
http://www.paradigm-sys.com/

He has a new book out: "The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal Is Bringing Science and Spirit Together"

> they turn all pseudo-skeptic and quote James Randi chapter and verse
FTFY. James Randi is a pseudo-skeptic -- he can't apply his skepticism towards his own skepticism.
See: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm#RealSkeptics

> there's no such thing as spirits, ghosts, gods, reincarnation or afterlife?
WRT the afterlife, the only people you should talk to IMHO are people who have been declared clinically dead, and yet "awoke" 30 mins, 1 hr later. etc. Because unless you have been dead, you have _zero_ experience. Who would you rather learn from? Somebody who went through an "interesting experience" or someone who has no frame of reference or knowledge about a topic yet pretends to?

WRT reincarnation, the evidence is still controversial (i.e. as in, it goes against my belief system so I can't accept it.) It would be best to read the evidence for yourself and make your own mind up, instead of letting other people dictate what they _think_ is correct.

http://www.squidoo.com/the-best-reincarnation-books
http://letusponder.hubpages.com/hub/10-books-about-Reincarnation

1. Children's Past Lives: How Past Life Memories Affect Your Child, by Carol Bowman
2. Many Lives Many Masters, Brian Weiss
3. You Have Been Here Before: A Psychologist Looks at Past Lives, Dr. Edith Fiore
4. Children Who Remember, Dr. Ian Stevenson
5. Past Lives, Future Lives, Dick Sutphen
6. Reliving Past Lives, Helen Wambach
7. Edgar Cayce's Story of Karma, Mary Ann Woodward
8. Mass Dreams of the Future, Chet Snow
9. Reincarnation, Sylvia Cranston and Carey Williams
10. Journey of Souls: Case Studies of Life Between Lives, by Michael Duff Newton

Best of luck in your journey!

I love logic as much as the next guy, but ...

Oh please. Like Randi is the bastion of objective, constructive criticism, and logical thinking. He's a pseudo skeptic at best and a closed-minded dishonest irrational rationalists at worst.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm

Little bit of an axe to grind perhaps? That article is chock full of weasel words and logical fallacies, including a lengthy list of straw man arguments.

I love logic as much as the next guy, but ...

Oh please. Like Randi is the bastion of objective, constructive criticism, and logical thinking. He's a pseudo skeptic at best and a closed-minded dishonest irrational rationalists at worst.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm

James Randi is a liar, pseudo-skeptic, and wanker who pretends to be a skeptic. Why anyone would trust a magician over a REAL scientist is beyond me.

If you think it's a question of trusting a person, you've clearly failed to understand what the discussion is about. I don't trust Randi any more than I trust anyone else; I trust the scientific method.

I'd say the handling of Project Alpha clearly shows that Randi has a better understanding of the scientific method than do many "real scientists", but it's irrelevant anyway since the real question is whether the methodology behind the JREF tests is sufficiently rigid to provide controls against frauds and charlatans while not being overbearing for any 'legitimate' applicants. And the answer is a unequivocal "yes"; the participants take an active role in designing the experiments, and agree to the terms prior to commencing the testing. Then, when they fail, they whine and moan about how unfair Randi is.

You can read all about the details here...
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm
and
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

You're joking, right? :) You couldn't possibly take those 'rebuttals' seriously. Nobody is THAT stupid.

James Randi is a liar, pseudo-skeptic, and wanker who pretends to be a skeptic. Why anyone would trust a magician over a REAL scientist is beyond me.

You can read all about the details here...
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page30.htm
and
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html

Randi very clearly lays out of the bounds of any tests beforehand, and what is considered proof. ...And then changes those parameters at any time. If you Google this you'll see many independent complaints about this.

If anyone had actually passed that test, they would, you know, sue him, because they were promised payment of a million dollars if they did that. There is an actual contract with actual winning conditions.

No can do, as per the contract, which is designed to benefit James, not the applicant:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/89173/exposing_the_unfair_truth_about_the.html

But since you've made that claim, you should be able to demonstrate that Randi has, at least once, laid out a test and winning conditions, and then backpeddled once someone actually won.

Except it's no contract in the lawful sense. Seek and Ye shall find:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/89173/exposing_the_unfair_truth_about_the_pg2.html?cat=17

Video: James Randi Challenge Exposed - A Lawyer Explains:
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1442

Professor Michael Prescott found that James Randi’s million dollar challenge is very much an illusion that have fooled people for decades:
http://torbjornsassersson.wordpress.com/2010/05/02/james-randi-and-his-one-million-dollar-challenge-fraud/
http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/challenge.htm

Examples (hard to find these days as SEO or litigations have made sites disappear, they used to be easy to find):

Rico Kolodzey
http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

Riley G Matthews
http://www.rileyg.com/pressdir.htm

Serios
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/08/lets_get_serios.html

Or you are a liar and a slanderer who has accused someone of criminal fraud.

These are not my claims, and there are many many more, however hard to find now. Some is to be found in articles, some in books. I'll let the reader make the good judgement wether this is true or false, I don't have the time or interest to investigate it in detail for you.

You missed my point entirely though. Since everything "supernatural" can be explained away with magic tricks or similar mundane tricks, then it is impossible to prove that you just did something "supernatural". If you read more about James Randi, you'll see his argumentation is dismissive of diversity of people, intolerant and arrogant. So the "Challenge" then quickly turns into a fight for survival, and often end up in the courts. Not very nice.

Yeah, you moron, because that's what he's testing.

Wow, where did that come from?

If he let people win by 'statistics', he'd have a constant stream of people claiming they could predict a coin toss 75% of the time....and eventually one of them would happen to do that. Because that's how statistics work.

But how can you ever dismiss statistics? It is crucial to make discoveries and validate them in any field. Nothing is ever as black and white as some people want the world to be..

This has been discussed to death in other forums. If a basketball player misses the hoop 1 in 100 shots, is she no longer a basketball player? This is the way statistics is being misused to dismiss any results in the JRF chalenge. In the

> Anyone with any common sense is agnostic(be it agnostic theist or agnostic atheist). Both sides are equally clueless.

As a mystic/gnostic, correct, both the theists and atheists are equally ignorant of higher reality. At least the agnostic is honest to admit that he doesn't know. Unfortunately, fundamental agnostics are the worst kind of skeudo skeptics, such as (Richard) Dawkins, (James) Randi, etc. http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

> A god is just as likely as unlikely and we arent even close to having a clue either way.
Only an ignorant angostic would support that position. There is a BIG difference between information, knoweldge, gnosis, and proof, and truth.

It is not so much, that a/theism and agnostic are wrong, only incomplete.

> Same with FTL. Our current method of going faster is to simply accelerate more. General relativity tells us that that approach won't work even for reaching C, much less exceeding it.
> So, we need a workaround.

You DO realize we live in more then 4 dimensions, right?

The physical dimension is only the "bottom" that we are normally perceptive too. The speed of light is not a barrier in higher realms, and is easily "broken" in them.

The workaround is:
1. Shift to another dimension
2. Travel
3. Shift back to physical dimension

> A pet hypothesis of mine is that perhaps as an object with mass approaches C, conventional laws of physics break down and we need a whole new set of physics to figure out what happens at those velocities.
Yes, the same way conventional laws of physics break down at the micro (Quantum Mechanics), they break down at the macro (General Relativity).

> sense that they don't violate what we know about physics.
That's the biggest hurdle at the moment. Scienctists knows jack about physics and meta-physics outside the normal 4D as they are still missing 2 fundamental forces. Until we can answer _basic_ questions such as: "What is electricity? What is gravity? What is magnetism? What is light? What is time? What is the soul? What is the source of all these things?" our understanding will be limited to simply _using_ them.

> The empirical evidence strongly suggests that traveling at or above C is, indeed, impossible.
Humans are currently limited to sub-light speed until the 24th century, as they have not learned how to be responsible with what they _already_ have. When you still have people who live like kings and throw whatever they don't want away (America), people whose daily existance is starvation (Africa), people arguing over who's God is "right" by killing everyone who doesn't agree with them (Islam), ignorant pseudo skeptics who have made a Religion of out atheism (Randi) ( http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/skeptic.htm, http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/talk/talk.html, http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm ), the brainwashing of the public school education, er, sorry indoctrination system ( http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm ) humanity will never make progress on _External_ knowledge until they first learn the source of ALL (internal) wisdom: KNOW THYSELF.

As we spiritually grow up, FTL and time-travel will naturally open up.

--
"Mind, not Space" is the FINAL frontier